A Modest and Reasonable Proposal

A brief report on James Pawsey's amendment to allow limited physical discipline in maintained schools with parental consent

The current crisis of discipline in British schools prompted backbench MP, James Pawsey, to propose an amendment to the Education Bill which would have permitted schools to use corporal discipline as an alternative to exclusion, with parental consent.

The proposed clause, which was debated in the House of Commons on 28 January, read as follows:

Where a pupil... is required on disciplinary grounds to be excluded from school for a fixed period, the school may make arrangements... for him to be given corporal punishment at his school as an alternative to that exclusion, and such punishment shall not be unlawful if his parent's consent to it has been given... in the form of a signed parental declaration.

Reasonable provisions

The amendment was carefully framed and included the following provisions:

• the headteacher must have published the fact that corporal punishment may be used in the school
• the punishment must be administered by the headteacher or by an authorised senior member of staff
• another member of staff must be present, of the same sex as the pupil being disciplined
• the reasons for the punishment must be set out in writing and given to the parent beforehand
• a register must be kept to record the reasons for the punishment and those present when it was administered
• the punishment must be reasonable, proportionate and have regard to the pupil's age, state of health, disciplinary record and any special educational needs

Permissive, not prescriptive

Mr Pawsey repeatedly stressed that the clause was permissive, not prescriptive: 'It does not force or require schools to adopt corporal punishment. It merely provides corporal punishment as an added sanction that might be available in cases of severe misdemeanour.' The decision as to whether or not physical discipline were to be used in a given school would rest with the headteacher, the governors and the parents.

Families for Discipline had not previously campaigned for the restoration of corporal discipline in maintained schools. However, the tone and content of James Pawsey's amendment was so liberal and reasonable that we gave it our full support.

Worthy of support

In a letter and briefing paper sent to over 120 Government Ministers and MPs, we set out four reasons in support of the amendment:

1. It respected the philosophical convictions of all parents.

2. It respected the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

3. It respected the freedom of headteachers and governing bodies, in consultation with parents, to agree a policy on discipline appropriate to the requirements of their own individual school.

4. It conformed to the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.

European Convention

In fact, Mr Pawsey's amendment appears to have been more in keeping with the spirit of the European Convention on Human Rights than current UK law. Article 2 of the First Protocol of the Convention requires that 'the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.'

Since two-thirds of parents support the restoration of corporal discipline in schools, the present blanket prohibition fails to represent the philosophical convictions of the majority and is therefore arguably in contravention of the Convention. By contrast, James Pawsey's amendment provided a clear and simple way for respect to be paid to the convictions of both those parents who support the use of corporal discipline in schools and those who are opposed to its use.

This being the case, it was disappointing that the Prime Minister denied his Ministers a free vote on the amendment, even though several prominent members of his Cabinet, including the Education Secretary, support corporal discipline in schools. Nevertheless, 101 MPs voted in favour of the proposal - twice as many as had been estimated.

This article was originally published in Families for Discipline newsletter, Issue 5, Spring 1997

Copyright © 2001-2007 Families First. All rights reserved.